Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just on this motion, as the Government of the Northwest Territories, we’ve said on a number of occasions that nothing we can do could take away from the established land claims authorities that are there that are constitutionally protected in this country. We’ve said that and have that in some of our legislation, as pointed out. Those pieces of legislation that are included are, in fact, ones that are much larger, that effect direct impact on some of the co-management areas. The Member has raised the Wildlife Act, for example, because it directly involves a relationship with the land claims groups and Aboriginal governments. We need to be very clear on that.
There were a couple of points, just for the record, because there were a couple of points that were raised that need to be clarified for the record, so we don’t have this as down in history of that point being specific.
For example, Indian Affairs branch land, I believe it’s called, or IAB. When the transfers occur from the federal government, they don’t come and tell us and consult with us and negotiate with us. They transfer. They have an Order-in-Council and they transfer and we end up picking up some of those pieces, whether it’s the Housing Corp or other areas in the community. The times we get involved are when we work with the bands to possibly look at land exchanges within community boundaries. So for that, I know the Minister said he would get additional information on that, but just so we get it on record.
The other piece is land claim selection. Now, when land claims were negotiated and land selected within communities, those were treated in the sense that when an Aboriginal group -- and we have examples of those -- selected within community boundaries, the lands they selected were treated as any property owner in a community. Dollars were exchanged for that property and treated fee simple, I guess is the word to use, which then in community planning and development, the community would have to approach the land owners in the community about certain developments. So there is the right and the role of a land owner in a community to deal with the community development that is being proposed or asked about. That community council/government, would have to take that into consideration.
So I wanted, for the record, to point that out. Yes, there are land selections, but when they made land selections in the community, there was an exchange of value as the claim was settled and the federal government exchanged cash for property that was provided to the Aboriginal group as part of their selection. But then that property in the community became, as a taxpaying community, part of fee simple ownership and their right to go to a community council/government and say we disagree with certain developments in this area. So that exists. I think that is why the approach was initially by the department to say it applies. Those rights are already established as fee simple title holders in our communities.
On top of that, overall as a government we clearly state that nothing we can do as the Government of the Northwest Territories can take away from. The other side is we have to be cautious to ensure that at the same time we are not, through an act of the Legislative Assembly, giving more powers or more authority than was negotiated in the land claims. So we have to be careful on that side of it too. That is why there was some caution raised at the stage as it was.
We hear, and I’ve heard from Members, about the inconsistencies, and I think that goes from the fact that some of our earlier pieces of legislation that were put in place when we first signed some of these agreements was we found examples of where there were inconsistencies of application. Quite clearly now, we’ve gone through this a number of times and as more claims are settled, we are updating our claims or legislation to recognize the rights that are established and constitutionally protected.
So I just wanted, for the record, Mr. Chairman, to put that forward. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. To the motion. Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, colleagues. Again, I’d like to state that it’s not only what’s in the land claim agreements. I know I spoke about IAB lands and treaty rights. I think that these conflicts can exist simply by going ahead without getting a band council motion. People have tried that in the past, and they’ve basically learned the hard way and they’ve ended up in court. I think that’s what we’re trying to avoid here, that we avoid a long, drawn out process, and take the time to consider those other legal binding obligations we have, whether it’s through treaty entitled lands, land claim agreements or even developments adjacent to municipalities that may have...(inaudible)...through resource development or a simple thing like expanding a municipal boundary outwards on different types of land.
That is something we have to be conscious of. We do have to ensure that whatever legislation we put forward, you have the provisions up front so people realize that that is imperative to any legislation we pass in this Legislative Assembly.
With that, I’d like to request a recorded vote, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. To the motion.
Question.
Mr. Krutko, Mr. Bromley, Mr. Menicoche, Mr. Ramsay, Mrs. Groenewegen, Mr. Beaulieu, Ms. Bisaro, Mr. Yakeleya.
All those opposed. All those abstaining.
Mr. Lafferty; Mr. Roland; Minister McLeod, Deh Cho; Minister McLeod, Inuvik Twin Lakes.
Thank you, committee. The results of the recorded vote are: eight in favour, zero opposed, and four abstentions. The motion is carried.
---Carried
Clause 1 as amended.
Agreed.
---Clauses 1 through 7
Mr. Krutko.
Mr. Chair, if it’s acceptable to the House, can we do this in blocks? We’ve got 80-something clauses, so it could save us some time. So if that’s acceptable to the rest of the House, maybe we could consider that.
Agreed.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Committee agree?
Agreed.
I was going to do that anyway. Clauses 8 through 20.
---Clauses 8 through 20 inclusive approved
Clauses 21 through 30.
---Clauses 21 through 30 inclusive approved
Clauses 31 through 40.
---Clauses 31 through 40 inclusive approved
Clauses 41 through 50.
---Clauses 41 through 50 inclusive approved
Clauses 51 through 60.
---Clauses 51 through 60 inclusive approved
Clauses 61 through 70.
---Clauses 61 through 70 inclusive approved
Clauses 71 through 80.
---Clauses 71 through 80 inclusive approved
Clauses 81 through 88.
---Clauses 81 through 88 inclusive approved
Bill as a whole as amended.
Agreed.
Does committee agree that Bill 7 as amended is ready for third reading?
---Bill 7 as a whole as amended approved for third reading
Okay, Bill 7 as amended is now ready for third reading. Thank you, committee.
Okay, I believe it’s going to be the same witnesses, Minister McLeod? No? ...(inaudible)...and escort the witnesses out of the Chamber.
Is it agreed we proceed with Bill 19?
Agreed.
Agreed. The first thing we’ll do is we’ll get the Minister responsible to introduce the bill. Minister McLeod.
Mr. Chairman, I am here to present Bill 19, Cost of Credit Disclosure Act. This act fulfills a commitment made by the Premier of the Northwest Territories, who was a signatory of the Agreement on Internal Trade (1994).
That agreement was signed by Canada`s First Ministers in July 1994, to reduce barriers to the movement of persons, goods, services, and investments within Canada. The objectives of the reforms in the agreement are to harmonize laws and develop simplified, uniform cost of credit disclosure requirements to reduce compliance costs and provide uniform consumer protection across Canada.
Changing patterns of credit use among Canadians resulted in the need to modernize laws governing credit. This act will apply to a wide range of credit arrangements and leases in the Northwest Territories, and will set out specific disclosure requirements for all forms of consumer credit.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to hearing comments from the Members, and answering any questions.
Thank you, Minister McLeod. We’ll now go to the chairman of the standing committee responsible that reviewed the bill to make committee comments. Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Minister. The Standing Committee on Economic Development and Infrastructure met on August 16, 2011, to review Bill 19, Cost of Credit Disclosure Act. Following the public hearing and clause-by-clause review, a motion was carried to report Bill 19 to the Assembly as ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole.
This concludes the committee’s general comments on Bill 19. Individual Members may have additional questions or comments as we proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Would the Minister responsible like to bring witnesses into the Chamber?
Yes, I would, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Is committee agreed?
Agreed.
Sergeant-at-Arms, if I could get you to escort the witnesses into the Chamber.
Thank you, Minister McLeod. If I could get you to introduce your witnesses for the record.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. With me today I have Mr. Mike Aumond, deputy minister of Municipal and Community Affairs; Laura Gareau, director of corporate affairs with MACA; and Kelly McLaughlin, legislative counsel with the Department of Justice. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister McLeod. General comments on the bill, Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of general comments on Bill 19. There is a section, I think it’s 31, that talks about reporting. I had questions at committee about that. I got a response from I believe it was the deputy minister and the Minister that it wouldn’t cause an administrative burden on the various lending agencies that the government has, such as the BDIC, student financial assistance and ITI. Obviously it looks like it’s going to pass. You know, next year or the year after, are the departments, BDIC or ITI coming forward looking for new positions to deal with billing or making statements on a monthly basis?
I just don’t want to see us again creating an administrative burden for ourselves when we don’t really need to. That was my big fear, Mr. Chairman. I just want to put that on the record again. I will be watching closely as things unfold. Hopefully I’m back next time to keep an eye on things, but thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Any more general comments? Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I had raised concerns about people who avail themselves of payday loans who are ending up getting charged more than is legally correct for loans, and it was discovered sort of incidentally through associated court cases. This legislation came forward and I am happy to see that it does profile that and address it in the Northwest Territories.
I think especially payday loan-type companies can, through various fees and charges, interest rate applications, end up overcharging people accessing these lendings. Typically, a lot of these people will not have the skills or the inclination to read the fine print and that’s often where these charges are. So it will be critical for clients who use these services to be provided the information in this bill in a plain language form to ensure that they, indeed, understand the law and that consumer protection is achieved. It’s on that basis that I just want to hear the Minister confirm that that communication plan is in place, and that those materials will be provided and readily accessible at all companies providing these sorts of services.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Aumond.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. When this act comes into force and the regulations are drafted by April 1, 2012, we will have communications materials available, not only to help the institutions themselves but also with the purpose for making it easier for the public to understand the transactions they are entering into. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Aumond. General comments. What is the wish of committee? No more general comments?
Detail.
Detail? Does committee agree that we proceed through a clause-by-clause review of Bill 19?
Agreed.
There are a substantial number of clauses. Committee agree that we do the clauses in bulk?
